Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40887565›Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2026

A Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches in Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Inherited Bleeding Disorders.

Diaz M Prameyllawati, Hester F Lingsma, Marjon H Cnossen, Renske M T Ten Ham

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Diaz M PrameyllawatiDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. d.prameyllawati@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0009-0002-5289-0394
Hester F LingsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marjon H CnossenDepartment of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Renske M T Ten HamDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWA.1160.18.038.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this review is to identify and assess modelling approaches in published model-based economic evaluations of treatments for individuals with inherited bleeding disorders.

methodsA literature search was performed on seven electronic databases, from database inception until 30 May, 2024. Inclusion criteria were cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses using decision-analytic models. The approaches from included models were identified and assessed, and these approaches were compared across bleeding disorders and treatments.

resultsThis review included a total of 47 decision-analytic models. The identified models primarily evaluated treatments for severe haemophilia A and B. For haemophilia without inhibitors, factor concentrates were the most evaluated intervention (n = 21, 68%), followed by gene therapies (n = 6, 19%) and emicizumab (n = 4, 13%). For haemophilia with inhibitors, assessed interventions included emicizumab (n = 8, 50%), immune tolerance induction with factor concentrates (n = 5, 31%) and bypassing agents (n = 3, 19%). Markov models were often used as a model type (n = 27, 57%), followed by decision trees (n = 9, 19%), Markov decision trees and decision process (n = 5, 11%) and individual-level models (n = 5, 11%). Regardless of the model type, most authors used a lifetime horizon, a 1-year cycle length, and bleeding events-particularly joint bleeds-as key health states of the models.

conclusionsAs the reviewed decision-analytic models mainly assessed treatments for severe haemophilia, the identified common approaches may only be generalisable to evaluating these treatments. Further research is required to evaluate their relevance for evaluating treatments of milder forms of haemophilia or other inherited bleeding disorders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42023416560.

Indexed as

Blood Coagulation Disorders, InheritedModels, EconomicAntibodies, BispecificAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesGenetic TherapyHemophilia AHumansMarkov ChainsAntibodies, BispecificAntibodies, Monoclonal, Humanizedemicizumab

Identifiers

PMID40887565
PMCPMC12790516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.